2021 Supreme(HP) 444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ.
Vinod Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of H.P. & Ors. - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 2830 of 2021
Decided On : 07-05-2021

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a public servant should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on the ground of malafides. The court emphasized that the employee does not have a vested right to be posted at a particular place and highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in transfer/posting cases.

Headnote:

Transfer - Public Servant - Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on the ground of malafides. The employee does not have any vested right to be posted at a particular place. The challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as they are Appellate authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. The law regarding interference by Court in transfer/posting of an employee is well settled and the conclusion may be summarised as under: 1. Transfer is a condition of service. 2. It does not adversely affect the status or emoluments or seniority of the employee. 3. The employee has no vested right to get a posting at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a particular time. 4. It is within the exclusive domain of the employer to determine as to at what place and for how long the services of a particular employee are required. 5. Transfer order should be passed in public interest or administrative exigency, and not arbitrarily or for extraneous consideration or for victimization of the employee nor it should be passed under political pressure. 6. There is a very little scope of judicial review by Courts/Tribunals against the transfer order and the same is restricted only if the transfer order is found to be in contravention of the statutory Rules or malafides are established. 7. In case of malafides, the employee has to make specific averments and should prove the same by adducing impeccable evidence. 8. The person against whom allegations of malafide is made should be impleaded as a party by name. 9. Transfer policy or guidelines issued by the State or employer does not have any statutory force as it merely provides for guidelines for the understanding of the Department personnel. 10. The Court does not have the power to annul the transfer order only on the ground that it will cause personal inconvenience to the employee, his family members and children, as consideration of these views fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. 11. If the transfer order is made in mid-academic session of the children of the employee, the Court/Tribunal cannot interfere. It is for the employer to consider such a personal grievance.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Veterinary Officer, was put under suspension and subsequently transferred to different locations. He filed a petition seeking to quash the transfer orders and relief from the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no reason to interfere with the transfer orders, emphasizing that the employee does not have a vested right to be posted at a particular place. The court also highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in transfer/posting cases.

Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer orders of the petitioner, a public servant, should be interfered with by the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that transfer of a public servant should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on the ground of malafides. The court emphasized that the employee does not have a vested right to be posted at a particular place and highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in transfer/posting cases.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court found no ground to issue notice in the petition, emphasizing that the transfer orders were passed looking to the convenience of the petitioner.